Factual Matrix 

In the case of Raje v. State of UP victim girl left her house at around 6:30 a.m. to use a public toilet in the West of her village. As she was returning home after using the public toilet, the accused Raje @ Rajesh @ Santosh Kumar Shukla, who was hiding in Arhar Field of Jagadish, came out from there and brandished a country-made pistol at her, threatening to shoot her if she cried. He then dragged her to the tubewell room, threw her on a bed, and took her away She cried on the cot all day while the accused was nearby and continued to threaten her. In the evening, he also contacted the other co-accused, Chunni Lal, who had also raped the woman. After that, they both left the room and locked it from outside. Throughout the entire night, she didn’t stop sobbing and crying. Her co- villager Raghunandan, Shiv, and Ashok Kumar arrived there early in the morning and freed her by opening the door. After telling her mother and brother about the incident, her brother accompanied her to the police station and filed a report. At the Government Hospital in Fatehpur, the doctor conducted her medical examination. Her lower, blood-stained garment from the time of the incident was seized at P.S. No opinion regarding rape can be offered because the medical examination revealed that the girl was 18 years old and had a history of frequent sexual activity using the two-finger test. The defendant was charged under Sections 376, 342 and 506 of the IPC.

Argument Advanced 

The defendant claimed that the informant and prosecutrix had made false statements against him in his statement made pursuant to Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Prosecutrix and co-defendant Chunni Lal had a love affair, and she eloped with him before being found in Khaga. 

Court Conclusion

Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra ruled in a single bench that the prosecutrix’s evidence in a rape case is on par with that of a hurt witness. If the prosecutrix’s evidence gives rise to trust and seems credible, it is really not required to demand confirmation. An accused person may be found guilty based solely on the prosecutrix’s testimony without any additional supporting evidence, so long as her statement gives rise to confidence and seems natural and truthful. Absent proof, the testimony of a sex offender victim is entitled to great weight. The court sentenced the accused to ten years of solitary confinement and a fine of Rs. 5,000 with a default clause for the Section 376 IPC charge, six months of solitary confinement for the Section 342 IPC charge, and one year of solitary confinement for the Section 506 IPC charge. 

CASE – Raje v. State of UP, Criminal Appeal No. 1399 of 2010